Thursday, January 05, 2006

1,576 days and counting


James Glassman reminds us that it has been almost 1,600 days without an attack on American soil, here. This is due not to luck but to practices like the controversial electronic eavesdropping program. Former New York mayor Ed Koch (D) weighs in here and says that the program is sufficiently subjected to oversight and controls. In fact, it was once suspended and refined under former Attorney General John Ashcroft to better respond to privacy considerations:

Over a year ago, a Times reporter told his editors that the National Security Agency -- whose responsibility it is to electronically monitor security-related phone conversations -- was doing so without the authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. This court was specifically created to review NSA requests to surveil telephone calls and e-mails coming from overseas or initiated in the U.S. where one of the participants is a person known to the government to be affiliated with terrorism.

Ordinarily, telephone taps of domestic calls are only permitted by regular court order based on a showing of probable cause of criminal activity sufficient to meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. However, the NSA is subject to a more relaxed standard. It merely needs to show the FISA court that one of the participants in an overseas call is associated with terrorism.

Since the NSA’s surveillance program commenced in October 2001, the FISA court has denied surveillance authorization in few instances. On December 27, 2005, the Times reported, “From 1995 to 2004, the court received 10,617 warrant applications, according to figures compiled by the Federation of American Scientists. It turned down only four, all in 2003 for unexplained reasons.” Nevertheless, the administration has generally refrained from seeking FISA court approvals. The administration has stated that it believes, based on the advice of career lawyers in the Department of Justice and Attorney General’s office, that the President does not need a court order to direct the NSA to intercept overseas calls since 9/11, after which Congress authorized war against international terrorism.

Further, the administration believes, notwithstanding the ease with which court orders are granted and the fact that retroactive court orders and 72 hours emergency surveillance without a court order are permitted, that it has and should have the right to proceed in these cases without a court order.

The administration says it monitors the surveillance program carefully and reauthorizes it every 45 days. On one occasion in March 2004, while Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital, the administration was told by Ashcroft’s Deputy, James B. Comey, that he would not recertify the program.

The Times describes the situation as follows: “Officials with knowledge of the events said that Mr. Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to sign on to the continued use of the program, and that the Justice Department’s concerns appear to have led in part to the suspension of the program for several months. After a secret audit, new protocols were put in place at the N.S.A. to better determine how the agency established the targets of its eavesdropping operations, officials have said.”

Comey has since left the government and one of the FISA judges, James Robertson, who apparently had some disagreements with the actions of the FISA court, resigned from it in December 2005. On January 2, 2006, the Times quoted President Bush as saying, “Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it’s been reviewed by members of the United States Congress…It’s a vital, necessary program.”


Meanwhile, Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle evaluates the politics of the controversy:

(a)ngry leftists are so hysterical that they cannot distinguish between government agents eavesdropping on a president's political enemies, and the data mining of international phone calls in an earnest effort to thwart another Sept. 11 terrorist attack. They don't see that Bush, rather then trying to hide his role in the effort, signed off on the program more than 30 times.

Warrantless wiretaps? Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, called CNN recently to note that the Clinton administration authorized the warrantless search of the house of CIA employee Aldrich Ames.

But the Dems didn't talk of impeachment then.


Clearly, the fact that there has been no attack on American soil since 9/11 shows that the domestic tactics and strategy advocated by hawks, on both sides of the aisle, has kept people safe. I certainly don't lose sleep at night worrying about whether or not civil liberties are being infringed.

11 Comments:

At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on! As a result of American policy in the last 2 years we have seen the following direct terror retalition

Istanbul - 27 dead
Jakarta - 11 dead
Madrid - 191 dead
London - 56 dead
Amman - 60 dead

Not to mentoin the 45,000 to 50,000 dead in Iraq

Just a matter of time before America gets hit hard. Ya reap what ya sow.

 
At 11:59 AM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

Any opinions on the original post or just the "US deserved 9/11" track?

 
At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm.. Do you really think that polices of Bush have made the US safer? I agree with ilheus, i think the US has sealed it's fate by invading iraq. The only question is what the climate will be like following the next big attack

 
At 12:17 PM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

I don't think that you can completely eliminate all risks, but you can't ascribe rationality to suicide bombers and those who consider everyone who does not follow Sunni extremism an infidel.

I'm sure we can all agree that terrorism is not a rational or reasoned response to any American policy.

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

I don't know, but I would think that legal controls around national security policies and practices would prevent us from finding out - unless the NY Times decides to get in touch with their sources and enlighten us all.

One thing is for sure - by virtue of the fact that he is not a Dem, we can assume that he is abusing his power, undermining democracy and putting America on the path to fascism.

 
At 2:09 PM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

I didn't say there is no known evidence. There is no known evidence to people like us who don't have top secret US government security clearances.

There may well have been many arrests. There may well be ongoing investigations which law enforcement agencies do not comment on as a policy.

Legal electronic wiretapping has been going on in Canada since 1974, not since 9/11, and as the Koch piece pointed out, it had been going on in the US as far back as the 70s as well.

What we do know for sure is that there has been no attack on US soil in almost 5 years since 9/11. That's undisputable.

Why the outrage about picking up the bad guys?

 
At 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I imagine the terror network is pretty vast, quietly monitoring the bad guys will lead you to more. There are probably alot of cells out there

 
At 9:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, I agree - Glassman is right. 1,576 days without a terror attack MUST mean Bush's policy is working.

I haven't looked yet, but I bet I'll also agree with his columns that laud Bill Clinton for keeping us free from radical Islamic terror attacks for almost eight years, from Feb. 26, 1993, until he left office on Jan. 20, 2001, and from domestic attacks in general for six and a half years, from April 19, 1995 until Jan. 20, 2001.

Man, when you people grasp at straws, you really grasp at straws.

PS-Before anyone rages about my love for Clinton, a disclaimer - I hate Clinton, and certainly don't think it was any of his policies that prevented attacks, the same way I don't think it's any of Bush's that have done it, either. Ever see the Simpsons episode with the bear patrol credited with keeping Springfield safe from a repeat of the one bear attack they'd ever had? Yeah. Sort of like that.

 
At 10:50 AM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

So what is preventing attacks? Shit luck?

I am proud to say I have never, EVER watched an entire Simpsons episode in my life.

*puts hands in front of face waiting for attacks*

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Road Hammer,
I know it's just bleeding heart liberalism to suggest that we actually, you know, listen to what the terrorists themselves say, if only for strategic purposes, but bin Laden has made it very clear in several speeches that his goal when it comes to the US is, to coin a phrase, shock and awe - each attack must be bigger than the one before it, and if it takes five, six, seven, eight years to adequately plan that, then, well, Allah will be around forever - he can wait a bit. It's not like he suddenly declared war on us in 2001, as so many people assume: it was long before that, but he's willing to bide his time.

No attacks for not watching the Simpsons, but seriously, you're missing out. The most recent seasons are terrible, but seasons 2 through 6 or 7 are some of the funniest, most intelligent and most creative television ever made.

 
At 1:07 PM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

I'll see if any pals have those seasons on DVD and I'll borrow them.

I totally agree that the "war" didn't start in 2001. Everyone in the business listens to what the terrorists say if only to try and make sense of what drives the mind of a suicide bomber.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home